Circumcision

This has been discussed on another thread - and many many people agree with you, including me. It is disgraceful that it is legal and is another instance of the powers that be being too scared to challenge the religious lobby.

Fine if there are medical indications; but barbaric if it is just ritual.

I haven't realised there had already been a thread on this. It was just brought home to me when I heard about this acquaintance's baby. Poor wee thing. I could smack that Dad. (Still might )

Was it done for religious reasons Jane10? Our eldest son was circumcized at the age of 15 months, but it was because he was continually very sore in that area, and the doctor said it needed doing.

number - that is a whole different thing to circumcision for non-medical reasons.

Yes. Incomprehensible 'Religious' reasons. Now has medical problems as a result.!

Circumcision is not without its medical complications.

A friend of mine, years ago, when you were kept in hospital for a week after having a baby, came home on day 8 to find her in-laws, complete with the Moyl (sp) all gathered in the house ready to do the deed!

She went along with it, as her husband was circumcised and she thought it would be better if they were both the "same".

Yes - it's quite a party - they all sing and dance and celebrate.

I saw this on TV once - it was a programme following pregnant mums before and after the birth. They honed in on a happy party celebrating the birth - then the guy with the scalpel appeared and laid the poor wee chap out on a white cloth. Made me feel totally sick.

I simply don't understand how it is legal. Fine do all the religious flim flam you want but don't cut up tiny babies for reasons lost in the mists of time.

Indeed so!

My husband had to be circumcised when he was 8 and had a fairly traumatic time and a chap I worked with had to be done when he was in his twenties,

DD asked my opinion on circumcision for DGS because they live in the tropics and apparently quite a lot of baby boys are circumcised in hot, humid climates for health reasons. She decided not to have it done (I didn't know what to advise).

Jane10 I agree with you completely but the question of having done never arose anyway with my son or grandson.
I am really against it even for so called religious ritual. From what I can remember of my school RE I think it was a long held tradition which was adopted into the religious practice of Judaism. Cutting off the foreskin was meant to fulfill some sort of contract or sacrifice to God.

On the FGM thread I posted a video of the process of circumcision which in Judaism should be carried out on the 8th day after birth. That is barbaric. To continue this practice as a part of religious ritual is dreadful.

Given how well designed our bodies generally are, I cannot believe that there is not a very good reason why males of so many species have foreskins to protect the penis.
So in general chopping it off for no good purpose is wrong. It does seem to be needed at times for good medical reasons. Trying to retract the foreskin too early in a child's life can lead to problems of tissue scarring which might need cirumcision later. Never mind the stress inflicted on the child at a very early age.
I think it has been done far more routinely in the USA amongst non Jews and Muslims than it ever has in Britain.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19072761

This gives some stats about how often this is done in different countries.

Nelliemoser Thank you for the link. That is an excellent article.

I don't subscribe to circumcision on religious grounds, but when DS2 was about 2 he needed one on health reasons. He was permanently on antibiotics for infections due to a very narrow foreskin. once done, he was infection free. So yes/no...

My son was born in Canada in the early 60s, where circumcision was routine - but it was done non-surgically (at least in the hospital where we were). A device which looked, if I remember correctly, something like a small acorn with a hole in the tip was placed over the penis. This stopped the flow of blood to the foreskin, which eventually came away. I refused the procedure - which caused some quite heated arguments with the medical staff. Anyway - this non-surgical procedure was said to be painless. It is so long ago that I almost thought I might have imagined all this, but I googled 'non-surgical circumcision' and found that it is now being carried out in a number of countries as a health measure and is being heralded as a 'new' procedure.

The reason for circumcision is Abraham's covenant with God that all males be circumcised. There can be infections etc, but it is very minor procedure, men are able to enjoy a full sex life unlike FGM. It is practised by Jews, Muslims and many African tribes. For Jews it I is a mitzvah, it is a religious procedure laid out by the the Bible. FGM is cultural and far more cruel. It is to keep women down and in the control of their men

I imagine that all these religions that believe in the covenant Abraham made with God, also believe that it was God who created man. Can they not see the irony in this? Do they not question a God who creates something with a flaw that has to be surgically corrected?
I'm sure this God could have amended his design (after all, he is omnipotent, so this shouldn't be a problem) instead of making a covenant with Abraham to correct his mistake in perpetuity by subjecting baby boys to this barbaric practice.

Well said Indinana.

Both of my husbands were circumcised, but both were born in hot countries. Neither suffered any long term psychological damage

FGM and circumcision are both culturally determined dorset - they are both abhorrent to me and should both be outlawed.

"Abraham's covenant with God" - what a load of rubbish! How is it possible that thousands of years after this story babies are still being subjected to this abuse? Do we still throw people to the lions?

It is not a "very minor procedure" - it carries many risks. Even if it was, it is still abuse of a child's body, over which that child has no say. It is quite appalling. Here is a list of the known complications from the site of Stanford School of Medicine Paediatric Department:

Bleeding
Infection
Adhesions/ Skin bridges
Inclusion cysts
Abnormal healing
Meatitis
Meatal stenosis
Urinary retention
Phimosis
Chordee
Hypospadias
Epispadias
Urethrocutaneous fistula
Necrosis of the penis
Amputation of the glans
Death

apparently when my father was in hospital for a minor op - can't remember what for now - he was shocked to find that while he was under the anaesthetic they'd circumcised him. until the day he died he didn't know the reason but i know my mum found it rather funny at the time. i think he was in his seventies when he had the op and, as far as i know, had no problems either before or after.

but i agree it is a barbaric process both for boys and girls.

Can I just pop something else into this conversation which I have been reading thoughtfully. DH is circumcised as is my brother and many men of their age who were not brought up in any particular religion but it seems it was routine in many hospitals (they were both born in London Hospitals at about the same time). Both men have told me they like it and the look of it and DH says it feels more hygienic and are not aware of having had any problems with it. I believe there was some work done some time ago in respect of cervical cancer and the relationship to unprotected sex with uncircumcised males although don't quote me on it and I am pretty confident someone can find conflicting studies. I do agree it seems barbaric to inflict this on baby boys but just putting a circumcised male view.